coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Iaşi.
6.  On 14 December 2009 the District Court convicted the applicant of battery and threatening behaviour, for which he was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine. The conviction was upheld by the Bucharest County Court on 3 May 2010, following an unsuccessful appeal by the applicant.
7.  On 26 January 2010 the applicant started serving his sentence. He was released from prison on 1 March 2011.
8.  The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison. There was a general problem of overcrowding and constant noise. Cells were dirty, the air was stale and there were cockroaches, rats, bedbugs and lice in the cells and beds. Hygiene conditions were poor throughout the prison, including in the kitchen and in the toilets, where there was no privacy. The building was poorly insulated, which made it very cold in the winter and very hot in the summer, when the temperature could often reach 50oC. Living in those conditions had caused him to lose consciousness several times.
9.  The tap water was undrinkable, being filled with impurities and rust from the pipes. The food was of poor quality and cooked with the prison water. In addition, there were cockroaches on the canteen tables and the place was infested with mice.
10.  The applicant maintained that drugs were dealt openly in the prison and that drug users would attack him, steal his clothes and abuse him in order to get money for drugs. He did not report the abuse, as his attackers had threatened to kill him if he did.
11.  The applicant stated that after the first six months of his detention, he was deprived of sleep, food and water, had lost his teeth and weight, and had become depressed.
12.  According to the official prison records, the applicant was transferred sixteen times during his detention but served most of his sentence in Jilava Prison. The cells he was placed in measured between 36 and 38.34 sq. m and contained eighteen or nineteen beds, most of the time being slightly below full capacity. The applicant had between 2 and 3.4 sq. m of personal space in his cell at all times.
13.  As the applicant was assigned to a semi-open regime (regim semi‑deschis), cell doors were left open except when food was served, and he had daily access to the courtyard between 8 and 11 a.m. and again between 1 and 5 p.m. Cells could be aired by opening the windows. The applicant had unrestricted access to the toilet, which was completely separated from the cell living space by a wall. There was central heating throughout the prison. Detainees had access to showers twice a week; the shower rooms had even been renovated in 2009.
14.  The quality of water was tested periodically and that of food daily. The results were satisfactory.
15.  Hygiene and pest control were performed by specialist companies. Toilets were disinfected daily and cells whenever necessary.
16.  Prisoners’ clothes were washed weekly upon request.
5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Sombor.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 8 July 1998 the applicant, a practising lawyer, filed a civil claim with the Municipal Court in Novi Sad, seeking payment of fees from a private insurance company (“the respondent”) for the service rendered on account of a legal fee agreement concluded in 1995.
8.  On 17 September 1998 the Municipal Court ordered that payment (izdao platni nalog). The respondent objected to this order.
9.  On 27 September 2001, in the course of a hearing, the respondent filed a counter-claim, requesting the Municipal Court to declare the 1995 contract null and void.
10.  On 16 September 2002 the Municipal Court decided to join the proceeding initiated by the claim and the counter-claim.
11.  On 24 November 2003 the Municipal Court quashed the payment order of 17 September 1998, rejected the applicant’s claim, declared a part of the contract void and decided that the other part of the contract remained in force.
12.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this judgment.
13.  On 24 February 2005 the District Court in Novi Sad upheld this judgment on appeal.
14.  On an unspecified date in April 2005, the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (revizija).
15.  On 30 November 2006 the Supreme Court returned the file to the District Court, which had apparently failed to adjudicate a part of the applicant’s appeal.
16.  On 25 April 2007 the District Court adopted a supplementary judgment (dopunska presuda), rejecting that part of the applicant’s appeal.
17.  On 24 October 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (odbacio reviziju kao nedozvoljenu), stating that the applicant was not entitled to lodge it, given that Article 84 of the Civil Procedure Act 2004 prescribes that an appeal on points of law may only be submitted by an attorney at law, not the plaintiff personally. The Supreme Court specified that, according to this Act, parties to the proceedings had lost the legal capacity to file an appeal on points of law individually, even if they were themselves attorneys at law.
18.  The decision of 24 October 2007 was served on the applicant on 14 January 2008.
19.  On 11 February 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court of Serbia.
20.  On 13 May 2008 the Constitutional Court requested the applicant to specify his complaint.
21.  On 6 June 2008 the applicant filed his amended constitutional appeal.
22.  On 25 March 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as incomplete.
4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Lovas.
5.  The Veszprém County Administrative Office rejected the request of the applicant, a real-estate developer, for a building permit to construct a three-flat condominium. The Office was of the view that the project was irreconcilable with the planned location, the historical neighbourhood of Veszprém town.
6.  On 21 June 2001 the applicant challenged this decision in court.
7.  On 25 March 2003 the Veszprém County Regional Court quashed the administrative decision and remitted the case to the administrative authorities.
8.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 2 March 2007 the applicant’s request was again dismissed.
9.  On 18 April 2007 the applicant renewed its action.
10.  On 31 October 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the action, holding that the administrative decisions had been given in compliance with the law.
11.  On 25 February 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed, on the merits, the applicant’s petition for review (service: 14 April 2009).
4.  The applicants were born in 1927 and 1956 respectively and live in Cluj-Napoca. They are mother and daughter.
5.  From 1960 they lived in an apartment rented from the State in a nationalised building. On 16 December 1996, under Law no. 112/1995, the first applicant and her husband bought that apartment from the State.
6.  In a final decision of 3 August 1998 the Cluj-Napoca County Court allowed an action brought by the former owner against the State and noted that the latter had acquired ownership without any legal title.
7.  Based on that decision, the former owner lodged several actions for annulment of the sale purchase contracts concluded under Law no. 112/1995 against persons who had bought apartments in the nationalised building in similar conditions, including the applicants.
8.  In a judgment of 3 May 2001 the Cluj County Court annulled the sale purchase contract. During the proceedings the first applicant’s husband died. Therefore, the proceedings were continued by their daughter, the second applicant.
9.  On 19 October 2001 the Cluj Court of Appeal rejected the applicants’ appeal. Therefore, they lodged an appeal on points of law before the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
10.  On 29 September 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice remitted the trial of the appeal on points of law to the lower court, noting that the latter was competent in the matter.
11.  In a final judgment of 19 April 2007 the Cluj Court of Appeal annulled the contract concluded on 16 December 1996. The court found that the nationalised building had been acquired unlawfully by the State, which therefore had no valid title deed over it.
12.  In two judgments of 7 April and 19 April 2006 different panels of the same Court of Appeal dismissed the actions for annulment of contracts concluded under Law No. 112/1995, lodged by the former owner against other persons, neighbours with the applicants, who had bought apartments in the same nationalised building.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 27 April 1995 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on charges of fraud and forgery.
6.  The bill of indictment was preferred on 9 October 2000, and the first hearing took place in 2003.
7.  On 8 April 2010, after several hearings, the Pest Central District Court found the applicant guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
8.  On the applicant’s appeal, the Budapest Regional Court acquitted him on 27 May 2011.
9.  The judgment became final on 4 July 2011.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Šabac.
5.  The applicant was employed by “Zorka -mineralna đubriva” AD, a socially/State-owned company based in Šabac (hereinafter – “the debtor”).
6.  On 3 July 2003 the Šabac Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears and procedural costs. On the same date the judgment became final.
7.  On 17 May 2007 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.
8.  On 18 May 2007 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
9.  On 19 February 2008 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.
10.  On 2 March 2010 the applicant urged the court to continue the enforcement proceedings.
11.  On 1 June 2010 the court informed the applicant that the debtor was still undergoing restructuring and that therefore the enforcement proceedings could not be continued.
12.  On 10 July 2002 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process. The restructuring of the debtor is still ongoing.
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ljubljana.
6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed section of Ljubljana prison in the period between 28 May 2009 and 27 February 2010. From 28 May 2009 to 23 September 2009 he was held in cell 2 (third floor), which measured 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places. From 23 September 2009 to 22 January 2010 and from 28 January 2010 to 27 February 2010 he was held in cell 129 (second floor), which measured 8.8 square metres (including a separate 1.3 square metre sanitary facility) and contained two sleeping places. From 22 January 2010 to 28 January 2010 he was held in cell 121 (second floor), which measured 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained six sleeping places. According to the applicant, five prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention. The Government submitted that in cell 2 the numbers varied between four and five, in cell 129 the applicant was held alone and in cell 121 three prisoners were held.
7.  During his imprisonment the applicant had three consultations with a general practitioner and one dental appointment. He did not ask for psychological or psychiatric treatment.
8.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.
9.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).
10.  From 26 October 2009 to 13 January 2010 the applicant was placed under a stricter regime as he had physically attacked another prisoner. During that time he could spend two hours per day outside his room during recreation time, he had two hours for visits per week and telephone contacts twice a week. He was not allowed to use a multipurpose hall and he received his meals in his cell.
11.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.
5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ljubljana.
6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed section of Ljubljana prison in the period between 30 March 2009 and 23 December 2009. From 30 March 2009 to 14 April 2009 he was held in cell 5 (third floor), which measured 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places. From 14 April 2009 to 11 June 2009 he was held in cell 7 (third floor), which measured 16.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places. From 11 June 2009 to 2 July 2009 and from 30 July 2009 to 19 December 2009 he was held in cell 124 (second floor), which measured 8.8 square metres (including a separate 1.3 square metre sanitary facility) and contained two sleeping places. From 2 July 2009 to 30 July 2009 he was held in cell 120 (second floor), which measured 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 6 sleeping places. From 19 December 2009 to 23 December 2009 he was held in cell 98 (first floor), which measured 8.8 square metres (including a separate 1.3 square metre sanitary facility) and contained two sleeping places. The Government submitted that in cells 5 and 7 the numbers varied between four and five, in cell 120 the numbers varied between five and six and in cells 98 and 124 the applicant was held with one other prisoner.
7.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.
8.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).
9.  During his imprisonment the applicant had thirty-three consultations with a general practitioner and declined some of them. He also had five dental appointments and five treatments by a psychiatrist. He asked for and was given a psychological consultation, however he did not attend it.
10.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.
5.  The applicants, who are brothers, were born in 1973 and 1983 respectively and live in Plovdiv.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  In September 2003 the applicants’ father made them beneficiaries under his life insurance and accident insurance policies. The total amount payable in case of death as a result of accident under the accident insurance policy was 10,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), or BGN 5,000 in respect of each brother. The applicants’ father died on 29 June 2004 as a result of an allergic reaction to a wasp sting.
8.  In September 2004 the applicants were informed by the insurance company that a “wasp sting” was not a risk covered by the accident insurance policy, and the company accordingly refused to pay out on the claim.
9.  In 2005 the applicants, represented by counsel, brought a claim under the Commerce Act for the payment of compensation under the accident insurance policy. During a hearing on 12 April 2005, the applicants informed the court that, after their father’s death, they had handed the original insurance policy documents to the insurance company upon its request. Although the applicants had sought to recover those documents from the company, the latter had only returned to them the “additional conditions”. During the same hearing, upon a request by the applicants, the court ordered the insurance company to produce the complete insurance policy file, referring to Article 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1952, in force at the time. The company produced the file during a hearing on 10 May 2005 and the court accepted it as evidence in the case.
10.  By a judgment of 26 July 2005 the Sofia District Court allowed the applicants’ claim. The court noted that, in so far as allergic reactions were not included in the disclaimer to the accident insurance policy signed on 15 September 2003, the applicants were entitled to benefit from the compensation payable in the event of their father’s death as a result of an accident.
11.  The insurance company appealed against the judgment. In its appeal it acknowledged, inter alia, that the existence of a valid contract was not disputed. However, it claimed that the allergic reaction did not fall under the “accident” category as defined in the insurance policy.
12.  On 16 May 2006 the Sofia City Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicants’ claim in a final judgment. The court stated that no copy of the insurance policy had been produced by the parties. It further stated that in the absence of a copy of the policy it was unable to correctly establish the circumstances of the case. Finally, it found that, while the fact of the contracting of the policy was not a subject of dispute between the parties, that did not in itself prove its existence.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Budapest.
5.  The applicant was a professional staff member of the Hungarian Police since 1994.
6.  In early 1997 she was warned that her employment might be terminated in a few months; therefore, on her initiation, she was interviewed at another police department.
7.  As a ‘top executive’ (kiemelt főelőadó), she was found suitable for a new position within the counter-terrorism unit.
8.  From 1998 onwards, she was ordered to undergo, annually, a medical aptitude test of a kind different from what she had formerly been subjected to. This test was meant for the position of a ‘member of counter-terrorism unit’ (terrorelhárító beosztású).
9.  On 13 February 2001 she commenced her regular annual medical examination but, by the order of her supervisor, she interrupted the test. However, there were still two particular examinations outstanding.
10.  Subsequently, the applicant was ordered to take part, afresh, in another medical examination on 27 May 2001. It appears that the reason for this was that the change in her aptitude test regime back in 1997 had not been correctly applied.
11.  As a result of this latter examination, she was qualified as ‘unfit’ for the position she held and dismissed from service.
12.  On 28 February 2002 the applicant lodged an action with the labour court claiming that her employment had been unlawfully terminated and seeking damages.
13.  The Budapest Labour Court found for the applicant on 21 September 2005 and ordered the employer to pay compensation.
14.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Labour Court on 14 April 2006.
15.  In the resumed proceedings, the Labour Court rejected the applicant’s action on 16 January 2008. The court relied on the parties’ and other witnesses’ testimonies, a medical expert’s report and other documentary evidence and was satisfied that the applicant’s service had been justifiably and lawfully terminated.
16.  On appeal, the Regional Court upheld this decision on 15 October 2008.
17.  The Supreme Court confirmed the second-instance decision on 7 April 2010.
6.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in St Petersburg.
7.  On 19 May 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of organising a criminal gang and placed in the IVS, which, according to the applicant, was in a poor sanitary condition.
8.  On the following day the applicant’s detention was authorised by domestic courts. It was regularly prolonged until his release (see paragraph 11 below).
9.  On 1 June 2006 the applicant was transferred from the IVS to remand prison IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg, where he stayed until 19 May 2011. The facility was overcrowded. Thus, cell 81 measuring 8 sq. m was equipped with six sleeping places and accommodated up to six inmates; cell 104 measuring 8 sq. m was designed for six detainees and housed up to six individuals; finally, cell 907 measuring 8 sq. m presented six sleeping places and up to six persons who occupied them.
10.  On an unspecified date the St Petersburg City Court commenced the examination of the case. From that date, in order to take part in the hearings, the applicant was regularly transported by prison van between the remand prison and the court premises. While in the courthouse, he was placed in a confinement cell. The applicant alleged that both the van and the cell had been overcrowded.
11.  On 19 May 2011 the St Petersburg City Court ordered to release the applicant and on 14 June 2011 it acquitted him of all charges.
5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the Tyumen region.
6.  On 2 May 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. He was given a written note explaining that he could not be obliged to give evidence against himself, his spouse or close relative and that he was entitled to legal assistance from the moment that the arrest record or the detention order was read out to him. He signed the explanatory note and asked for legal assistance.
7.  At 6.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant was questioned. He was not assisted by a lawyer. According to the applicant, he was threatened that if he did not confess the investigator would order his cellmates to rape him. The applicant confessed to the murder.
8.  At 8.20 p.m. on the same day the arrest record was read out to him.
9.  On 3 May 1997 the applicant was brought to the scene of the crime where he repeated his confession and gave details of the murder. He was not assisted by a lawyer.
10.  On 8 May 1997 the applicant was provided with a lawyer.
11.  At the trial the applicant retracted his confession. He admitted that he had been at the victim’s house on the evening of the murder. However, he denied killing her.
12.  On 15 January 2001 the Kondinskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Region convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. It relied on the applicant’s confession statement of 2 May 1997, testimony by several police officers that the confession had been made by the applicant without any pressure and statements by witness Kh. that he had seen the applicant in the victim’s house several hours before the murder. The court also relied on the autopsy of the victim describing the injuries and establishing the cause of death.
13.  On 18 October 2006 the Khanty-Mansiskiy Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. It found, in particular, that the District Court’s reliance on the applicant’s confession statement had been lawful. The applicant had been questioned and had confessed before the arrest record had been read out to him. He had not therefore been entitled to legal assistance during that questioning.